Wholesale: Products & Services

Open Product/Process CR PC020502-1 Detail

Description Of Change

Products Impacted: Any products requiring tie cables to a collocation arrangement.

Qwest policy currently requires Covad to provide specific information relative to the tie cable assigned for use on a LSR/ASR. This information includes the type and gauge of cable of the assigned facility (CFA). If this information is not included or is not in agreement with Qwest records, the LSR/ASR is rejected, which results in delays for Covad customers. Covad believes that it should not be necessary to provide tie cable technical specifications on an LSR. This information is available to Qwest, as they originally installed the tie cables and determined the appropriate technical specifications at that time. This information should be available to them in TIRKS, if required. Further, Qwest is the only ILEC that requires this information to be provided on an LSR/ASR, indicating that the Qwest process is not consistent with industry "Best Practices."

Covad has experienced a significant number of order rejections for DS0, 1 and 3 services due to the omission of tie cable technical information or perceived discrepancies relating to these specifications resulting in delayed customer service provisioning.

Project Meetings

May 7, 2002 9:00 am (MDT) Conference Call TEL: 877-564-8688 CODE: 8973036 PC020502-1, Action Item No. 1

Attendees: Mike Zulevic, Covad Judy Hotovec, Covad Becky Neessen, Covad Ric Martin, Qwest Susan Earley, Qwest Crystal Soderlund, Qwest

Introduction of Attendees and Purpose of Meeting Introduction of the participants on the Conference Call was made. Ric explained that the purpose of the call was to clarify the action item requirements identified in April’s CMP meeting versus the requirement that was discussed in a Covad/Qwest conference call after the CMP meeting.

Review of Action Item Requirements Ric explained that it was Qwest’s understanding from the April CMP meeting that Covad was to identify a Central Office (CO) to Qwest (Susan) and Qwest Crystal would validate the CFA information at that CO. A subsequent conference call between Qwest and Covad identified the action that Qwest was to advise if a report could be generated from TIRKS to provide all of Covad’s CFA information for all COs. Ric asked which direction Covad wanted Qwest to take. Mike advised that there is a miss-match with the cable gauge information on the final CFA and what is in TIRKS. He understood the System CR needs, but indicated that would take a while to get through the process. He would like to have a 100% validation of their CFA information. Becky indicated that at the call between Qwest and Covad, Bill Fellman was to do a sampling of COs. Susan advised that she could do a sampling of a few offices. It was agreed that Covad would provide 4 COs which Qwest would validate the CFA information for each CO. Covad is to provide their APOT information, which Qwest will validate against. Becky advised that it would be a day or two before she could provide the information. Mike re-emphasized the need to have a 100% validation and would like to get a mechanized dump from TIRKS. Susan advised that she wasn’t aware if there had ever been an electronic dump. Susan will follow-up to determine if this is feasible. Judy indicated that there should be an OVC & APOT dump query. Qwest advised that they would respond to the items by May’s CMP meeting, or sooner.

Subject: RE: CFA Validation Date: Thu, 2 May 2002 12:24:11 -0600 From: "Susan Earley" To: "Michael Zulevic" CC: "Richard Martin" , "Susan Earley" , "Crystal Soderlund" , "Beckie Neesen (E-mail)"

In the meeting we had last month on line sharing and line splitters. I thought Becky brought this up and Bill Fellman was going to check with Tirks staff to see if they could run some kind of report to pull the CFA information for all of Covad's collos. Other then pulling up each one individually Bill and I knew of no way to pull all the collo information at once. I have left Bill a message asking about this. I will get back to you as soon as I hear from Bill.

Susan

--

Subject: RE: CFA Validation Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2002 17:08:49 -0700 From: "Michael Zulevic" To: "Richard Martin" CC: "Susan Earley" , "Crystal Soderlund" , "Beckie Neesen (E-mail)"

Ric,

According to Beckie, we are still waiting to see how you can provide us with a report from TIRKS that will allow us to validate it against our systems. Maybe Susan has an update on this.

Mike Z.

From: Richard Martin [mailto:rhmart2@qwest.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2002 2:04 PM To: Mike Zulevic Cc: Susan Earley; Crystal Soderlund Subject: CFA Validation

Mike,

At the last month CMP meeting, you requested that Qwest validate CFA information. Crystal Soderlund would work with Susan Early on this. You were to get with Susan to identify a Central Office they can take a look at.

Please let me know if this was your understanding and if you have had a chance to provide the information to Susan.

Thanks

Ric

--

Subject: RE: Action Item from April's CMP on CR PC020502-1 Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2002 16:07:48 -0700 From: "Michael Zulevic" To: "Richard Martin"

Ric,

I would like Qwest to find out why your TIRKS system has this requirement when other ILECs don't. My thought was for Qwest to use it's contacts from TIRKS user groups, or Telcordia, to determine if there is an easy way to address this. I don't think any contacts we may have would be useful in making this determination.

Mike Z.

--

Subject: Action Item from April's CMP on CR PC020502-1 Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2002 15:18:52 -0600 From: Richard Martin Organization: Qwest Communications International, Inc. To: Mike Zulevic

Mike,

At April's CMP meeting, we took an action item to contact ILECs regarding their practice of not requiring cable gauge information.

With the issuance of the Systems CR, do you still want Qwest to pursue this item. If so, could you provide the various contacts at the other ILECs that you deal with on the subject.

Thanks

Ric

Subject: APOT cable gauge problem Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2002 15:08:30 -0700 From: "Michael Zulevic" To: "Richard Martin" CC: "Judi Hotovec"

Ric,

Here is another example of the problem we are having with the cable guage. I'm told this office in Denver has become a major problem.

Thanks for your help.

Michael Zulevic Director- External Affairs Office(520)575-2776 Cel(303)884-5657 Fax (520)575-2785

Order# 1900877, pon# 1519719 out of central office DNVRCOCH on pair 8 > has the cable gauge info as 24-NL. The correct cable gauge for this CO > is pairs 1-300 = 26-NL pairs 301-900= 24-NL. Could you change this > information for me?

-

CLEC Change Request Additional Clarification Meeting

March 7, 2002 8:00 am (MDT) Conference Call TEL: 877-564-8688 CODE: 8973036 PC020502-1, ASR/LSR Cable Specification

Attendees: Mike Zulevic, Covad Judy Hotovec, Covad Richard Martin, Qwest Diana Rasmussen, Qwest Crystal Soderlund, Qwest

Introduction of Attendees Introduction of the participants on the Conference Call was made and the purpose of the call discussed

Additional Change Request Clarification Covad provided clarification that they would provide the cable name and/or cable pair number as required. They do not inventory the cable specification (i.e. cable gauge) and would prefer not to provide this. They indicated that no other ILEC required cable gauge information. They advised of past experience where the cable gauge changed and they were not aware. Qwest advised that they use TIRKS to inventory the cable information. Covad indicated that they thought the other ILECs also used TIRKS. Qwest advised that from the ASR stand point, the CLEC was required to provide the cable information if they were responsible for the cable assignment. Qwest advised that they would need to check what IMA validates in TIRKS and what is required for a partial/full flow through. It was agreed that the product type would cover UBL, UDIT and maybe Private Line, but would exclude shared loop. Qwest confirmed that the cable information is provided with the APOT and any revisions would generate a revised APOT.

Action Plan Qwest advised that they would be prepared to provide verbal options at the next CMP meeting.

Subject: CR PC020502-1 Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2002 10:50:24 -0700 From: Richard Martin Organization: Qwest Communications International, Inc. To: Mike Zulevic CC: Karen Kraas , Diana Rasmussen , Laurel Burke

Mike,

Could you please address the following questions:

1. What field(s) on the LSR and ASR do you populate with the tie cable specifications that causes the reject/delay?

2. I believe the LSR numbers you provided on our clarification call are Covad's internal LSRs. They do not appear in our system. Could you provide the corresponding Qwest LSR or PON.

Thanks

Ric

CLEC Change Request Clarification Meeting

2:30 p.m. (MDT) / Friday February 15, 2002 Conference Call TEL: 877-564-8688 CODE: 8973036 PC020502-1, Collocation Point of Demarcation cross-connect wiring

Attendees: Mike Zulevic, COVAD Richard Martin, Qwest Jeff Cook, Qwest Diana Rasmussen, Qwest Karen Krass, Qwest Laurel Burke, Qwest Bob Mohr, Qwest

Introduction of Attendees Introduction of the participants on the Conference Call were made and the purpose of the call discussed

Review Requested (Description of) Change Mike advised that on LSRs and ASRs information requested relates to the make-up of the specific tie-cable (1.e. 22/24 ga. Or 734/735 cable). Qwest provides the cable information. If COVAD doesn’t provide the cable information, or the cable information is different than what is in Qwest’s database, their order is delayed or rejected. Qwest advised that the cable information was part of the APOT number. It was confirmed that in IMA, this is a mandatory field. Qwest asked if there was a timing issue with providing the cable specification. Mike advised that there wasn’t a timing issue, but was concerned that there is no real value for the information, since Qwest has the information. Qwest advised that the cable information is provided in the APOT. COVAD indicated that sometimes the preliminary & final do not match up. COVAD provided the LSR examples: 1773574, 1738856, and 1850263. Qwest will look into these examples to determine what the downstream impact would be if the cable specification wasn’t provided.

Confirm Areas & Products Impacted COVAD advised that they would be interested in addressing any product that requires a tie cable going back to their Collo. . Confirm Right Personnel Involved Ric advised that we would need to identify another SME for this CR. The examples provided were for LSR. The SME on the call was responsible for Collo and dealt with ASRs. Qwest will identify the appropriate SME. Ric advised that if an additional clarification meeting were required, they would coordinate.

Identify/Confirm CLEC’s Expectation COVAD confirmed that they would like to remove the mandatory requirement to provide the cable specifications with the LSR/ASR.

Identify any Dependent Systems Change Requests It was confirmed that there is no corresponding Systems Change Request.

Establish Action Plan (Resolution Time Frame) Qwest to obtain appropriate SME(s). The CR will be open to the CLEC community clarification at March’s CMP Meeting.

CenturyLink Response

Michael Zulevic Director, Technical Regulatory Support Covad Communications

SUBJECT: Qwest’s Change Request Response - CR #PC020502-1 Eliminate Requirement to Provide Tie Cable Specification

This letter is in response to Covad’s Change Request PC020502-1 requesting that Qwest revise its LSR and ASR requirement for providing tie cable type or technical specification (i.e. cable gauge).

The APOT CFA data for cable gauge information is a requirement for the Qwest TIRKS database. If the cable gauge information is not passed via the service order, it does not allow the order to flow through without manual design intervention. This could cause delays for the CLEC and an increase in costs and resources for Qwest to perform this manual work. Increasing manual intervention defeats Qwest’s goal to promote flow through mechanization.

Programming for retrieving the cable gauge information from TIRKS and passing it to the order would require multiple systems changes. A Systems Change Request would be required to accomplish this. If Covad would like to pursue the systems changes that could accommodate their Change Request, Qwest will open a Systems Change Request on Covad’s behalf.

Sincerely,

Crystal Soderlund Sr Process Analyst

Cc: Diana Rasmussen Karen Kraas Susie Bliss